Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope

Jesus born earlier than thought, claims pope

The entire Christian calendar is based on a miscalculation, the Pope has declared, as he claims in a new book that Jesus was born several
years earlier than commonly believed.

The 'mistake' was made by a sixth century monk known as Dionysius Exiguus or in English Dennis the Small, the 85-year-old pontiff claims in the book
'Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives', published on Wednesday.

"The calculation of the beginning of our calendar – based on the birth of Jesus – was made by Dionysius Ex.

(visit the link for the full
news article)

edit on 11/21/2012 by subjectzero because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/21/2012 by subjectzero because: (no reason
given)

edit on 21-11-2012 by Maxmars because: Please use the exact headline from your source

This is the first time I've read that Jesus' date of birth was in dispute. I've never heard that any attempt has been made to correct the error.

It is believed that Jesus was born between 7BC and 2BC.

It is also the first time I have heard anyone from the Church officially admit that anything pagan was incorporated into Church tradition. The pope
admits that no one knows Christ's actual birthdate and that December 25th is likely a date associated with paganism.

This is the first time I've read that Jesus' date of birth was in dispute. I've never heard that any attempt has been made to correct the
error.

It is believed that Jesus was born between 7BC and 2BC.

If I understand the article properly, that's what the Pope is saying. He is saying that Jesus wasn't born in 1 A.D., but a few years earlier.
He's just stating the accepted view. It may be that this is newsworthy because the Pope said it, but I don't see anything dramatic here.

As the article points out, this is not a new theory.
In fact the assumption that the monk got it wrong is now commonplace among scholars. For example, his result is contradicted by the dates of Herod the
Great.

However, nobody will do anything to change the dates assigned to historical events, because it would be too inconvenient.
We just have to accept the anomaly that Christ was probably born around a date which we call "seven years Before Christ". (I think I was about ten
years old when I first met this in an encyclopedia).

If I put on my optimist hat; I find myself thinking that this may be a good thing....

The Institution's leader, and the central theological compass for the Catholic Church has finally acknowledged faith in the body of the church...

faith to know and understand that the date doesn't matter... it never did. Our fixation on it was a cultural phase.

On the other hand, [hat off] this admission of truth and fact is far too little.... it's time to admit to the "church what has transpired in the
name of the 'religion.' And what exactly is it doing now.

The idea that Christ was born on Dec 25 also has no basis in historical fact. "We don't even know which season he was born in. The whole idea of
celebrating his birth during the darkest part of the year is probably linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice."

Oh, ok... and when I bring this up at church I get evil looks? pss... pagans!

Originally posted by The GUT
How would that effect the whole Dec, 21 2012 thing?

That depends.
The people who calculated the Mayan calendar to that date presumably did so by counting days, so the label we give to the days ought to be
irrelevant.
On the other hand, it's very awkward for the people who get excited by the number symbolism, because the last digit in 21-12-2012 probably ought to
be a "9", which wrecks the whole thing.

Whats the significance of this I hear you asking ? well a friend of mine well versed in financial circles come across a white paper that stated WW3
would start around 2020 and that it would involve the Chinese and Russians versus the West to prevent the Western Alliances ( US UK France Germany
Canada Italy Spain ) from collapsing totally under a financial ruinous heap.

Certainly Christmas doesn't exactly fall on Dec 25th due to the winter solstice. In year 1 AD the Roman Solstice occurred Dec 23 at about 1:00 AM
LMT? Maybe those sneaky Pythagorean mathematicians had an older secret they wanted enshrined?

The idea that Christ was born on Dec 25 also has no basis in historical fact. "We don't even know which season he was born in. The whole idea of
celebrating his birth during the darkest part of the year is probably linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice."

Oh, ok... and when I bring this up at church I get evil looks? pss... pagans!

This is the first time I've read that Jesus' date of birth was in dispute. I've never heard that any attempt has been made to correct the
error.

It is believed that Jesus was born between 7BC and 2BC.

If I understand the article properly, that's what the Pope is saying. He is saying that Jesus wasn't born in 1 A.D., but a few years earlier.
He's just stating the accepted view. It may be that this is newsworthy because the Pope said it, but I don't see anything dramatic here.

Hallmark Cards would beg to differ with you....just kidding Charles. I agree...no biggie....

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.